The smarter leftists recognized this early in the campaign, when Trump received massive, early-Rowling-esque, international media attention for being such a popular rebel, therefore causing
Reminds this one of my little ditty on dissonance from 2015:
Still Antiwar: Why do you support Obama's war on terror?All easily adaptable to Trump and DACA, or of course Trump and Syria. How superficially strange, how seemingly impossible, to reflect on how very passionate leftists are about the dignity of Arabs sometimes, yet how brutishly callous they are about the lives of Arabs when NATO is involved. Which is stupider; which is more horrible; which is worse: the leftist's lies, or the rightist's? Nowadays, the rightist claims to want to prevent the Islamization of the West, the browning of America, or whatever, and yet nothing done wrong in that regard is anyone's fault. Perhaps it's a lack of inner emotional security that makes them feel afraid of being judged, therefore they're afraid of judging? No, it can't be that, since they'll judge the other "side." But why the fear, the impossible and insurmountable fear, of judging those who have betrayed, are betraying, and will continue to betray, them? Why the infantile aversion to seeing their own imaginary paladin defile the statues of their beloved gods? It is not truly their ideals that they respect; it is something different, for the ignorant, wanton forgiveness they lavish upon an Obama or a Trump, as either of the latter pisses rampantly on whatever they all claimed to value, negates forever the idea that they ever actually cared about those things. Even most of the self-professed "Nazis" out there are interested in defending Trump the Dreamer-globalist now, just as most of the self-professed communist universalists in 2009 were defending Obama the saber-rattling capitalist. This grasping need--this insane, oh-so-pitiful retardation--is beyond the realms of analysis pertaining to independent, self-interested, rational actors.
Now Curiously Accepting of War: Because it's not his fault. He was mired in it because of Bush and now he can't stop.
Still Antiwar: So if a president isn't responsible for starting a conflict, but is only carrying it on, that president isn't responsible?
Now Curiously Accepting of War: Yes. You can't blame Obama for not leaving the region in shambles after everything Dumbya did to it.
Still Antiwar: It says here that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq almost every week throughout his presidency, and that he viewed invasion as inevitable to protect America's interests in the region. He sanctioned Iraq for years, causing over a million civilian deaths, and military forces were constantly active in the region. Clinton even struck a lucrative pipeline deal with oil companies, promising to defend the pipeline from an anti-corporate faction in Afghanistan called the "Taliban"--by military occupation if necessary, if pipelines were damaged. Does that mean it's not Dubya's fault when he took office and found himself mired in an ongoing conflict?
Now Curiously Accepting War: FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY! WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN! TOYOTA PRIUSES WITH COEXIST STICKERS!
Considering the horrible things Trump has done to America, there clearly is a media bias in favor of him. The ridiculous things they accuse him of make them appear to be biased against him, but consider: if you murdered someone and were at your murder trial, and the prosecutor came out, ignored the murder charge, and started screaming to the jury that you had 300 unpaid parking tickets and had once stolen change from a vending machine, would the jury perceive the setup? To a less discerning person, the prosecutor would indeed appear biased against the accused. His apparent lunacy, though, could distract the jury from the murder. The accused could have committed the murder in front of the jury members on the courthouse steps that same morning, filmed on 100 separate bystanders' iPhones, then signed an affidavit of agreement with the team of geneticists who verified that the accused's DNA was found on the handle of the knife buried in the victim's heart. And yet, if the prosecutor does his job well, the jury will try the man based on the shoddy speculative evidence of the 300 parking tickets, and the hearsay about stealing change from the vending machine, and completely forget about the murder.
To a bystander, screaming, "What about the murder, you idiots?!" the duped jury's behavior would seem like madness. But then, if you're familiar with the way people around here think, you'll see the the prosecutor having an obvious bias toward the parking ticket issue is the easiest and most effective way to get the jury to forget about the murder. They want to feel that they have done something right; have figured out the daily political sudoku; have been thoughtful and intelligent and "seen through attempts to trick them." And letting them figure out that the prosecutor is actually biased about those parking tickets, about the accused's wife being ugly, and any other irrelevant crap a creative defense attorney disguised as a prosecutor might think up, can help a group of weak ones take pride in discovering that there were no records of those parking tickets at city hall, everyone knew that prosecutor was a bastard, now let's free the accused and go out for beers, hooray! We're detectives! Can't fool us!